The Intrigue of Negative Political Ads
Four reasons why theyāre exciting.
In the past two weeks, the political world has been in uproar over two negative advertising campaigns, one from each party. First, President Obama released an ad attacking Mitt Romneyās time at Bain Capital. Then, a planned ad tying Obama to Reverend Jeremiah Wright leaked to theĀ New York Times. I donāt need to analyze these ads and their meaning, because Anthony ResnickĀ has alreadyĀ done soĀ brilliantly. But Iām intrigued by negative adsānot just these two, but negative ads in generalāfor four reasons:
On this, there can be no debate. And itās not just voters who hate them. Every politician since the beginning of time has complained about negative campaigning and character assassination. In the 2000 Republican primary, George W. Bush and John McCain squabbling over negative campaigning during a debateĀ led to the crowd cheering Alan KeyesĀ more enthusiastically than a crowd of people has probably ever cheered for Alan Keyes before or since. Romney disavowed the proposed Wright ad, which was met with a torrent of criticism so strong that everyone associated with the project backed away from it like it was a nuclear bomb. Newark Mayor Cory BookerĀ criticizedĀ both the Wright ad and the Bain ad. But why? They had nothing in common except that they were both negative. An ad being negative alone should not be reason enough to hate it. This is silly. If an ad is untruthful (too many to name); or racist; or, at best, race-baiting (the proposed Wright ad; theĀ infamous Willie Horton ad); or nonpertinent and stupid (Obama is like Paris Hilton!), then, yes, hate away. But the concept of shining a harsh light on oneās opponent is not something at which we ought to turn up our noses. As they say, politics aināt beanbag.
For more of Ben Hoffman's examination of negative political ads, click here.Ā
